That is perfectly easy to do in post processing, and is even becoming widely supported in-camera. You picked a bad example if you want to highlight drawbacks of shooting JPEGs.

Wrong. JPEGs from in camera have the chromatic aberrations and distortion "removed" from the RAW data before the data is converted into a JPEG.

So what?

Also, removing distortion and other aberrations from a JPEG may be "easy" but it introduces far more digital artefacts than doing it from RAW.

You're grasping at straws. The process works, though you implied it doesn't.

Read the post again. I'm talking about going over old files and removing the aberrations. If you do it with a JPEG not only is the process less successful image quality wise, saving a JPEG after the process brings an inevitable further degradation to the image. This won't happen with RAW.

The "implication" wasn't that the process wouldn't work but that the process is a poor substitute.